You grew up in church- so you know Jesus said scripture is only the living word to those who believe.
Ok, suffice it to say I am an informed non-believer. The funny thing is that even the most hard core Evangelical pastors believe in the rapture and the millennium which offer all of the dead to be resurrected and given another chance to believe after the return of the Messiah so it is a moot point to believe now since all are given another chance to go to heaven, although none of that is supported in any way in the Bible. Another false conclusion being perpetuated by the mainstream Christian church. All bogus, all the time.
1) are you kidding? That's the most confining crap I've ever heard. Talk about gender stereotyping! Screw that. So you could technically be one gender in one culture and another in another? Come on man. This has gotten ridiculous.
2) nah. I think if you look at a guy and get a hard on- you're sexually attracted to him. I believe that's both inherited or learned. Both are absolutely legitimate feelings.
Ok- I agree with you- we'll let the fetus decide. Once the decision is made its final.
1) Quite the opposite. You pigeonholing every culture to say that men should act masculine and women should act feminine is the most confining thing you can believe. Here is a short-list maps of some of the more prominently known gender variances known to anthropologists.
2) Sure, it's inherited in the sense that your DNA comes from your parents, but there is no evidence to support that being gay or straight is learned behaviour. Did you go to class to learn that you liked women? Did you take an elective in school on how to get boners to big bobbed Latinos? I certainly didn't but based on your comments I must have.
3) The fetus isn't making any decisions. There is no conscious thought of "I feel growing a vagina and a penis today." I think what you need to accept is that nature isn't exact. It's why we have hermaphrodites and conjoined twins and millions of other unusual occurrences in nature, like being born with a rare disease. Homosexuals don't have some psychosis that makes them convince themselves that every day is opposite day. They and other recherché people are simply born that way.
Isn't it a false dichotomy to say being Gay must be either genetic or a choice, what about the third option, that it's not genetic and not a choice?
Because human beings are a complex mix of genes and ideas, both of which can effect our behavior. And you don't develop the full mental maturity to accept or reject information/ideas that are presented to your brain until later in life. So it's conceivable that the very young could have information flows in to their brain which somehow effect their later sexual behavior, but which they had no mental capacity at the time to accept or reject, i.e. no choice.
Did you go to class to learn that you liked women? Did you take an elective in school on how to get boners to big bobbed Latinos? I certainly didn't but based on your comments I must have.
I think what you need to accept is that nature isn't exact. It's why we have hermaphrodites and conjoined twins and millions of other unusual occurrences in nature, like being born with a rare disease. Homosexuals don't have some psychosis that makes them convince themselves that every day is opposite day. They and other recherché people are simply born that way.
*LatinA. No- but I wish I would have! I did marry a super hot Hispanic though.
While I agree with your last statement- it still doesn't change my idea that nature might get things mixed up and isn't exact (thank God)- but it doesn't "get it wrong" as it relates to sexual orientation. If you're chromosomes say you're a man. You're a man. You believing as hard as you can that you're a woman simply doesn't make it so. And I refuse to accept your, what I believe, mental disorder.
Gotta go to bed. I really appreciated the discussion Solip- definitely enjoyable, enlightening, and I respect your view completely. 8-)
Tim Cook made a simple statement: that he (and we can assume his company) are in support of the nondiscrimination act. Whether you support or object to discrimination (or laws prohibiting it), all that happened was one CEO of one company said he is opposed to this form of discrimination. The volume and tone of the responses here against his statement are further proof of the necessity of the law. Thank you for proving Tim Cook to be correct in his evaluation of the importance of this law.
If you're chromosomes say you're a man. You're a man. You believing as hard as you can that you're a woman simply doesn't make it so.
No one is saying that a sex change alters your chromosomes. As previously states, one's sex and one's gender are not restricted to a simple 1:1 ratio. It's about aligning one's mental self (just as out mental selves is male) with the physical self (which in our cases happens to also be male).
Isn't it a false dichotomy to say being Gay must be either genetic or a choice, what about the third option, that it's not genetic and not a choice?
Because human beings are a complex mix of genes and ideas, both of which can effect our behavior. And you don't develop the full mental maturity to accept or reject information/ideas that are presented to your brain until later in life. So it's conceivable that the very young could have information flows in to their brain which somehow effect their later sexual behavior, but which they had no mental capacity at the time to accept or reject, i.e. no choice.
I agree with the nature v nurture, or rather nature and/or nurture aspects all sorts of non-choices he have as human beings.
Off topic, but I am sick of seeing people masquerade as a woman on dating sites, but they are actually TS/TV -- then THAT should be their gender indication along with perhaps the gender they were born as.
Off topic, but I am sick of seeing people masquerade as a woman on dating sites, but they are actually TS/TV -- then THAT should be their gender indication along with perhaps the gender they were born as.
I can't say I've run to such a problem but I agree that people shouldn't lie about their sex.
Private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone, just like individuals should. If people don't want to do business with them, so be it. What happened to freedom of association you tyrants? If a gay-run company doesn't want to do business with conservative Christians, more power to them. It's amazing to see how many people go along with fascism as long as it has a "liberal" "progressive" or "gay" face. Shame on you bastards.
Not as long as they want to do business in America. We have a standard we shoot for on how people should be treated. Sometimes it falls short, but it still needs to be aimed for. The American Dream is there as a goal because you didn't need a leg up to try to attain it – anyone can have a fair shot at a good life if they worked hard and were a decent person. It can't be done if we are not equal to start with. Now if corporations want tax breaks, loopholes to exploit, and lobbyists to utilize and a voice in this society, then they need to make sure everyone that who contributes to taxes that they are befitting from has a shot to at least make a living free of possible persecution for issues that have nothing to do with work performance. Companies have a lot of influence on the future of the U.S., it should not be within their ability to marginalize a group of Americans when they contribute to a system they benefit from.
I'm sorry, but equality is just a bar all large companies should be able to clear. No one wants to tel them how to do business, but there is a standard on how you should treat people.
Your absolutely right. Heterosexuals can get it too... but you better check the CDC's web sight to see what activity is riskier and which demographic is the most highly infected. You will find that your chances of infection are much lower as a hetero.
Male-to-male sexual contact
30,573
NA
30,573
Injection drug use
2,220
1,428
3,648
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use
Your absolutely right. Heterosexuals can get it too... but you better check the CDC's web sight to see what activity is riskier and which demographic is the most highly infected. You will find that your chances of infection are much lower as a hetero.
[chart]
As stated, I'm not sure that chart is effective for your argument. Meaning, based on your own argument you're a much lower risk if you're a homosexual male that injects drugs than you are a straight male.
If you look at the chart in it's perspective it is even more scary... The chart is diagnosed cases... So, and I'm going to be very liberal here. If 3% of the population participates in homosexual behavior and half of them are female, then that means the 1.5% of the population is responsible for 32,000+ cases of transmission, while 17,000 cases were transmitted in 97% of the population. Pretty obvious where the risk is.
I wonder if this would have helped the guy from Mozilla. He was discriminated against
Is it really that hard for you to tell discrimination from respectful treatment. The proposal we are discussing here is about preventing discrimination, not about protecting it.
The "guy from Mozilla" was saying idiotic hateful things about people with different sexual orientation and paid the price for it. There is not much else that should be said about it. But of course people who discriminate would love it if somehow a law could be passed that would allow them to launder their hate and to hide behind (just like the religious people launder their hate with their imaginary god - I don't hate you god does).
Can I just point out that if Jonny Rockets, from next door wrote this tweet, this wouldn't be an issue? Everyone is getting upset because they think Tim Cook is using his position in order to progress what they feel is a political agenda. He didn't bring Apple in to this. He simply used his social media account to express his support for something. Something that MILLIONS of people do everyday.
The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters (75%) of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63%) of all new infections…
Even if you go to the highest risk category of the heterosexual community (poor urban) the infection rate drops to 2%.
Maybe this helps you understand the risk groups better.
Can I just point out that if Jonny Rockets, from next door wrote this tweet, this wouldn't be an issue? Everyone is getting upset because they think Tim Cook is using his position in order to progress what they feel is a political agenda. He didn't bring Apple in to this. He simply used his social media account to express his support for something. Something that MILLIONS of people do everyday.
When you are in a position, such as Mr. Cook, you no longer have personal opinions. Your voice is Apple.
Comments
Ok, suffice it to say I am an informed non-believer. The funny thing is that even the most hard core Evangelical pastors believe in the rapture and the millennium which offer all of the dead to be resurrected and given another chance to believe after the return of the Messiah so it is a moot point to believe now since all are given another chance to go to heaven, although none of that is supported in any way in the Bible. Another false conclusion being perpetuated by the mainstream Christian church. All bogus, all the time.
1) Quite the opposite. You pigeonholing every culture to say that men should act masculine and women should act feminine is the most confining thing you can believe. Here is a short-list maps of some of the more prominently known gender variances known to anthropologists.
2) Sure, it's inherited in the sense that your DNA comes from your parents, but there is no evidence to support that being gay or straight is learned behaviour. Did you go to class to learn that you liked women? Did you take an elective in school on how to get boners to big bobbed Latinos? I certainly didn't but based on your comments I must have.
3) The fetus isn't making any decisions. There is no conscious thought of "I feel growing a vagina and a penis today." I think what you need to accept is that nature isn't exact. It's why we have hermaphrodites and conjoined twins and millions of other unusual occurrences in nature, like being born with a rare disease. Homosexuals don't have some psychosis that makes them convince themselves that every day is opposite day. They and other recherché people are simply born that way.
Isn't it a false dichotomy to say being Gay must be either genetic or a choice, what about the third option, that it's not genetic and not a choice?
Because human beings are a complex mix of genes and ideas, both of which can effect our behavior. And you don't develop the full mental maturity to accept or reject information/ideas that are presented to your brain until later in life. So it's conceivable that the very young could have information flows in to their brain which somehow effect their later sexual behavior, but which they had no mental capacity at the time to accept or reject, i.e. no choice.
*LatinA. No- but I wish I would have! I did marry a super hot Hispanic though.
While I agree with your last statement- it still doesn't change my idea that nature might get things mixed up and isn't exact (thank God)- but it doesn't "get it wrong" as it relates to sexual orientation. If you're chromosomes say you're a man. You're a man. You believing as hard as you can that you're a woman simply doesn't make it so. And I refuse to accept your, what I believe, mental disorder.
Gotta go to bed. I really appreciated the discussion Solip- definitely enjoyable, enlightening, and I respect your view completely. 8-)
No one is saying that a sex change alters your chromosomes. As previously states, one's sex and one's gender are not restricted to a simple 1:1 ratio. It's about aligning one's mental self (just as out mental selves is male) with the physical self (which in our cases happens to also be male).
I agree with the nature v nurture, or rather nature and/or nurture aspects all sorts of non-choices he have as human beings.
Off topic, but I am sick of seeing people masquerade as a woman on dating sites, but they are actually TS/TV -- then THAT should be their gender indication along with perhaps the gender they were born as.
I can't say I've run to such a problem but I agree that people shouldn't lie about their sex.
Private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone, just like individuals should. If people don't want to do business with them, so be it. What happened to freedom of association you tyrants? If a gay-run company doesn't want to do business with conservative Christians, more power to them. It's amazing to see how many people go along with fascism as long as it has a "liberal" "progressive" or "gay" face. Shame on you bastards.
Not as long as they want to do business in America. We have a standard we shoot for on how people should be treated. Sometimes it falls short, but it still needs to be aimed for. The American Dream is there as a goal because you didn't need a leg up to try to attain it – anyone can have a fair shot at a good life if they worked hard and were a decent person. It can't be done if we are not equal to start with. Now if corporations want tax breaks, loopholes to exploit, and lobbyists to utilize and a voice in this society, then they need to make sure everyone that who contributes to taxes that they are befitting from has a shot to at least make a living free of possible persecution for issues that have nothing to do with work performance. Companies have a lot of influence on the future of the U.S., it should not be within their ability to marginalize a group of Americans when they contribute to a system they benefit from.
I'm sorry, but equality is just a bar all large companies should be able to clear. No one wants to tel them how to do business, but there is a standard on how you should treat people.
Because gay != paedophilia. I really wish people like you would wake up and understand this. It's really not that difficult.
Every time you come out with this rubbish, it shows your ignorance.
If you want to be an AIDS risk then do it.
AIDS doesn't discriminate based on sexuality. If *you* don't want to be an AIDS risk, then you should never have heterosexual sex, no?
You're not homophobic, you just don't like them?! Can I ask you to re-read that, but say it about "black people," or "Jews," or "Muslims"?
Your absolutely right. Heterosexuals can get it too... but you better check the CDC's web sight to see what activity is riskier and which demographic is the most highly infected. You will find that your chances of infection are much lower as a hetero.
As stated, I'm not sure that chart is effective for your argument. Meaning, based on your own argument you're a much lower risk if you're a homosexual male that injects drugs than you are a straight male.
If you look at the chart in it's perspective it is even more scary... The chart is diagnosed cases... So, and I'm going to be very liberal here. If 3% of the population participates in homosexual behavior and half of them are female, then that means the 1.5% of the population is responsible for 32,000+ cases of transmission, while 17,000 cases were transmitted in 97% of the population. Pretty obvious where the risk is.
I wonder if this would have helped the guy from Mozilla. He was discriminated against
Is it really that hard for you to tell discrimination from respectful treatment. The proposal we are discussing here is about preventing discrimination, not about protecting it.
The "guy from Mozilla" was saying idiotic hateful things about people with different sexual orientation and paid the price for it. There is not much else that should be said about it. But of course people who discriminate would love it if somehow a law could be passed that would allow them to launder their hate and to hide behind (just like the religious people launder their hate with their imaginary god - I don't hate you god does).
Replace the word "agenda" with "opinion" and "push" with "share".
FTFY
From the Center for Disease Control:
20% of gay males are infected
The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters (75%) of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63%) of all new infections…
Even if you go to the highest risk category of the heterosexual community (poor urban) the infection rate drops to 2%.
Maybe this helps you understand the risk groups better.
Can I just point out that if Jonny Rockets, from next door wrote this tweet, this wouldn't be an issue? Everyone is getting upset because they think Tim Cook is using his position in order to progress what they feel is a political agenda. He didn't bring Apple in to this. He simply used his social media account to express his support for something. Something that MILLIONS of people do everyday.
When you are in a position, such as Mr. Cook, you no longer have personal opinions. Your voice is Apple.